Judgment day for gay marriage
What Maine's vote means for the future of same-sex marriage
A same-sex marriage protestor stands on a Gay Pride flag.
(San Francisco Chronicle/Mark Costantini/Corbis)
Maine voters will decide Tuesday whether to uphold a law signed in May allowing gay couples to get married. Maine would be the first state to approve same-sex marriage at the ballot box -- but polls show an even fight. What does the vote mean for the future of gay marriage?
This could be a leap forward for gay marriage: "Don't be mistaken: This is a historic election," says Chellie Pingree in The Huffington Post. If Maine becomes the first state to "support marriage equality in a statewide vote"—after the anti-gay-marriage forces defeated Prop. 8 in California—the victory for fairness and equality "will resonate across the country and, I guarantee, through the halls of Congress."
"Tomorrow we can make history"
Redefining marriage would hurt society: Domestic partnership laws would give same-sex couples the same rights and benefits, says Marc Mutty in the Bangor Daily News. Upholding the gay-marriage law would show the downside of gay marriage—children would be taught about the new definition in elementary schools, and people "with religious conscientious objections to same-sex marriage" could face lawsuits. Given the pitfalls, there's no reason to tear traditional marriage from the law books.
"Considering the future of marriage"
Gay marriage will win regardless of what Maine decides: Gay-marriage supporters should "dampen expectations," say the editors of the Baltimore Sun. The Maine race is "too close to call," but even if voters repeal the law, as they did in California, the movement for equal rights for gays and lesbians is gaining momentum. "No civil-rights movement is immune from setbacks," but the march toward equality is "relentless."
"Maine and marriage"
Show: Oldest | Newest
20 Comments
Posted by BruceWMorlan, Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 1:37 pm As an activist I have to ask why the government gets to say ANYTHING about marriage, which is a contract between adults and their gods. Legislation supporting one form of marriage over any other is not part of what the government was formed to do, and mostly discriminates against single people by giving special rights to a class of people based solely on their personal relationships. We should ALL be equal before the law, period. Remove the financial and legal benefits of marriage and let us get on with our lives in peace.
Posted by Shannon, Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 1:48 pm Bruce, your point is fair and could be a subject of a good debate. However, our society and most throughout the world have decided there is a benefit to society to promote lasting relationships and stable families.The antigaymarriage folk have their heads in the sand and refuse to admit that the same family values applied to gay people would also be universally beneficial. But instead, they continue to try scaring people away from giving samesex couples and their FAMILIES the same benefits.
Posted by Shannon, Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 1:48 pm Oh and by the way... there are PLENTY of people all across the US who do not see god involved in their marriage contract.
Posted by nkdpagan, Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 2:31 pm there's no reason to tear traditional marriage from the law books.. Yes, its called the 1st Amendment. If you see marraige as a relgious rite thats rite, not right then the Goverment is out of bounds if it attempts to regulate it. If you see it as a business contract, then you discriminating against the two parties on basis of their genders...in other words, what BruceWMorlan said.
Posted by Marco, Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 3:06 pm when I first heard about gay marriage, I sort of laughed and thought so what they are just making a contract to honor and be faithful to each other. Then I started wondering why when so many couples just live together and attach no importance to marriage, and sex has become about as casual as eating a pizza or watching TV together, suddenly this is a big issue for the GLBT movement. So now I am thinking what is the consequence maybe we are playing with fire or opening Pandora's box here what will this really do to/for kids and families?
Posted by Shannon, Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 3:14 pm Marco, you made my point exactly. Those who have stronger family values would tend to LOOK DOWN on people just living together, seeing no importance in marriage, and having casual sex. Yet these same family values people are NOT supportive of gay people having a strong, committed family relationship. If the family values people were really interested in preserving families and promoting family values they would not be fighting so hard against gay marriage. But the truth is, they're not against gay marriage, they're against gay people.
Posted by paul, Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 3:30 pm The problem is that in the USA we allow religions to 'marry' couples making it a battle between a religious and a civil rights issue. What should happen is what happens in many parts of Europe. Couples have a civil union at the town or city hall. This is a legal contract between the 2 individuals. You don't have to do anything else legally. Now if you want a ceremony by all means you can go to your local church, temple or whatever and have a religious ceremony. The legal right to unite a couple has been removed from the religions.
Posted by Shannon, Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 4:07 pm Good point, Paul, allowing clergy to officiate for civil marriage makes it all murky. But it doesn't have to be so murky, if people could just understand the difference between a civil marriage license and a religious marriage ceremony. I know of many clergymen who would be happy to rid themselves of the 'civil' portion of the marriage rite.
Post a Comment